Kahoʻolawe

#23 in the Moʻolelo series

Also known as Kohemalamalama o Kanaloa, Kahoʻolawe was populated by a small number of Hawaiians in ancient times. In 1793, Captain George Vancouver introduced goats to the island as a gift to King Kahekili of Maui. In the Kingdom period, the island was used first as a penal colony, then after 1852, as a ranch. According to the Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC), “by the late 1890s, there are 900 cattle and 15,000 sheep on the island” (kahoolawe.hawaii.gov).

Protect Kahoʻolawe ʻOhana logo

In December 1941, Kahoʻolawe was seized during martial law and used as a bombing range. This use was continued after the war, even though “President Dwight D. Eisenhower transfers title of Kaho‘olawe to the U.S. Navy with the provision that it be returned in a condition for ʻsuitable habitation’ when no longer needed by the military” (KIRC). In the early 1970s, led by those involved in the struggle at Kalama Valley, a wave of Hawaiian activism swept through Hawaiʻi, mirroring to some extent radical movements occurring globally such as the Black Panthers and American Indian Movement. The Protect Kahoʻolawe ʻOhana (PKO) included George Helm, Kimo Mitchell, Davianna McGregor, Emmett Aluli and others, who landed on the island four times protesting the bombing. (A fifth landing occurred, including Terri Kekoʻolani Raymond, which was disavowed by PKO).

Helm was a charismatic young leader who was a talented falsetto singer and well-versed in Hawaiian culture. When he and Kimo Mitchell disappeared under mysterious circumstances, they became, in a sense, martyrs of the new Hawaiian movement.

According to the PKO website:

Operation Sailor Hat was an underwater and surface high-explosive test
program conducted in 1965 by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships (BuShips) under the sponsorship of the Defense Atomic Support Agency (DASA). This program consisted of two series of underwater explosions, three surface explosions at San Clemente Island, California, and three surface explosions at Kaho`olawe Island, respectively. The three 500-ton Trinitrotoluene (TNT) charges were constructed on the beach above the water line on the southwest coast of Kaho`olawe. The crater resulting from the first detonation was subsequently back filled and is no longer visible. The second and third detonations were conducted at the same site; the result is the present “Sailor’s Hat” crater. Sailor’s Hat crater has formed an aquatic ecosystem which has become habitat for two endemic species of shrimp: Halocaridina rubra and Metabataeus lohena.

The KIRC website states that “litigation forced an end to the bombing,”  neglecting the activism that was in concert with that litigation. PKO did indeed file suit in Aluli et. al. v. Brown in which the Federal Court enjoined the Navy to:

survey and protect historic and cultural sites on the island, clear surface ordnance from 10,000 acres, continue soil conservation and revegetation programs, eradicate the goats from the island, limit ordnance impact training to the central third of the island, and allow monthly PKO accesses to the island (protectkahoolaweohana.org).

My mother, who was an anthropologist, went on one of these accesses in 1980 – a time when visiting Kahoʻolawe was nearly unheard of. Between 1990 and 1995, a gradual process of transfer of Kahoʻolawe occurred from the Navy to the Kahoʻolawe Island Reserve Commission. This included funding in the 1994 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to provide for:

ʻclearance or removal of unexploded ordnance’ and environmental restoration of the island, to provide ʻmeaningful safe use of the island for appropriate cultural, historical, archaeological, and educational purposes, as determined by the State of Hawaii’ (protectkahoolaweohana.org.)

Over the next few years, roughly 70% of the surface and 10% of the subsurface were decontaminated.

On November 11, 2003 the access control was transferred from the US Navy to the State of Hawaii. The transfer was recognized in a commemoration ceremony a day later on November 12, 2003 on the grounds of Iolani Palace.

Recentering Hawaiians

#20 in the Moʻolelo series

This is the beginning of several posts I will be writing as I review this book.

Noelani Arista’s book The Kingdom and the Republic (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019) is part of a now decades-long project of Hawaiian revisionist history. Some use this term as an epithet – as if “standard” histories (in the case of Hawaiʻi, that would be Kuykendall’s The Hawaiian Kingdom) are not, and will never be, in need of revision. Revision is itself neutral – it can be well- or poorly done. Arista’s is, I think itʻs safe to say, in the former category – the dissertation it is based on won the American Historical Association’s dissertation of the year award (AHA is the academic association in history in the US).

Arista locates herself in this intellectual genealogy, beginning with Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa’s Native Land and Foreign Desires, which she notes “illustrated the power of metaphors framed out of a deep literacy in Hawaiian language” (Arista, 2019, 6). She continues this genealogical framing with Noenoe Silva’s work on Hawaiian resistance to annexation and colonization, Puakea Nogelmeier’s illustration of the historical counter-narrative seen in Hawaiian language newspapers and Kamana Beamer’s reframing of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a functional nation-state. To these one might add David Chang’s The World and all the Things Upon It, and Kealani Cook’s Return to Kahiki as illustrations of Hawaiians as discoverers, rather than “the discovered.”

Even my own work on the māhele and Kuleana Act is part of this same project – of showing Hawaiian agency – I show in my dissertation that, rather than passively accepting Euroamerican land tenure, Hawaiians co-created a land tenure system along with non-Hawaiians like William Richards. And it is with Richards that Arista’s book begins.

Richards was involved with what is known as “the outrages” and accused a British ship Captain named Buckle of buying a Hawaiian woman. This led Buckle to charge Richards with libel. An ʻaha ʻōlelo was convened to address these charges, based as they were in the space between Hawaiian, British and American law. Of which country was Richards a subject? Richards made an eloquent speech in Hawaiian claiming that his fate lay in the hands of the chiefs, and he said it in a way that evoked the ʻōlelo noeau “I ka ʻOlelo nō ke ola, I ka ʻōlelo nō ka make” [in the word is life, in the word is death]. As he had done with his concept of “three paths to foreign mana,” Richards shows again here his capacity as a translator of cultural concepts in what Arista calls a “world of words.”

The British Consul to Hawaiʻi, Charlton held that Captain William Buckle:

purchased a female slave at the island of Maui for the sum of one hundred and sixty dollars [and] as the purchasing of a slave is by the laws of Great Britain declared to be piracy, Andy instructions regarding slaves are very explicit … that the offender be brought to justice.

Arista, 2019, 204.

David Malo was brought before the ʻaha ʻōlelo for his advice and he used a precedent from Kaʻahumanu’s own past, asking: in Hawaiian traditional law, was it the messenger that was punished or the offender? Kaʻahumanu responded that it was the offender – her lover Kanihonui in this case, who was put to death by Kamehameha – who was punished, not the one who told Kamehameha. Arista notes that this use of tradition to navigate new legal concepts such as “libel” shows Hawaiian agency in facing Western modernity.*

*Note that Maloʻs statement assumes that Buckle is indeed guilty, which is what Buckle was contesting. This shows that Western concepts like libel and slander were perhaps indeed complex ones for Hawaiians to negotiate.

Hawaiian Leadership

#3 in the Moʻolelo series

Much is said about leadership in the Hawaiian community today. The movements surrounding Kalama Valley, Kahoʻolawe and more recently Mauna Kea have naturally produced leaders. In Hulīli journal, Guy Kaulukukui and Daniel Nahoʻopiʻi created an “inventory of exemplary Hawaiian leadership behaviors.” The quote above is from a participant in their study. So it behooves us to look back at traditional Hawaiian leadership to establish a baseline for leadership characteristics in ka wā kahiko. Malo’s chapter “No nā aliʻi a me nā kānaka” [Concerning the aliʻi and the people] is helpful in this regard.

Malo states that:

as for the nature of the aliʻi and the common people of Hawaiʻi, they were of the same sort, a single race … it was perhaps in the generations after Wākea that a separation developed between the aliʻi and the people.

Malo enumerates the duties of aliʻi, noting that “everything was under his control, so long as he acted properly” [emphasis mine, quotes are from Malo, edited by Langlas and Lyon]:

• to gather men together in time of war
• he said who should live and who should die, among commoners and aliʻi
• care for the soldiers
• “to him belonged the wealth given during the makahiki festival”
• “to him belonged the right to take away the land of commoners or aliʻi”

But the surprising part for me was in the preparation of a chief:

…the future ruler first lived under another aliʻi, so that he experienced poverty, scarcity, hunger and hardship, and reflected as a result of those troubles: he would learn to care for the people with patience, humbling himself below the commoners; he would learn to be religiously observant, not disregarding the kapu; he would live justly, not [be too quick to] shed blood, being kind in his rule over all the people.

Both monarchs in Europe and wealthy people in the West find difficultly with this problem of the spoiled heir. If a man is self-made and has gone through hardship to get there, he provides opportunities and luxuries to his son, which become the reason the son canʻt duplicate the father’s success. Among monarchs, Peter of Russia, son of Peter the Great was one such example – he was overthrown by his own young wife, who became Catherine the Great.

Thus the Hawaiian practice of subjecting an heir to poverty and hardship was an effective way of developing both grit and compassion for the plight of those over whom they would rule. (In the translation, the generic heir is male, but it isnʻt necessarily so in the Hawaiian – usually chiefs were male, but there were some examples of female ruling chiefs).

Much of Malo’s chapter is about genealogical succession, including the practice of nīʻaupiʻo – incestuous mating among the chiefly class. When I teach my students about this practice, I try to emphasize that nīʻaupiʻo is really about the right to rule. I look to Kamakau here for an explanation of chiefly rank, and its relation to nīʻaupiʻo.

Hawaiian leader George Helm

RANKS OF CHIEFS (ACCORDING TO KAMAKAU)

Aliʻi Nīʻaupiʻo – father was a high chief with no one of low rank on either side

Aliʻi Piʻo – the product of two nīʻaupiʻo chiefs (brother and sister)

Aliʻi Naha – product of nīaupiʻo half siblings

Aliʻi wohi – One parent is nīʻaupiʻo, the other is a high chief

Lō aliʻi – “The chiefs of Līhuʻe, Wahiawā, and Halemano on Oʻahu were called lō aliʻi. Because the chiefs at these places lived there continuously and guarded their kapu, they were called lō aliʻI [from whom a ʻguaranteedʻ chief might be obtained loaʻa]. They were like gods, unseen, resembling men” (Kamakau, 1991)

Aliʻi papa – product of a nīʻaupiʻo or piʻo and a kaukau aliʻi

Lōkea aliʻi – Father was nīʻaupiʻo and the mother was aliʻI nui, sometimes called wohi

Laʻauli aliʻi – parents both chiefly

Kaukau aliʻi – Father was high-ranking, mother was lower rank

Kūkae Pōpolo – Father was of little rank, mother of no rank. Children were called hana lepo popolo.

For modern leadership, surely other factors come into play – media presence, rhetorical skill, credibility of background and others. But it may be useful not to completely lose sight of traditional leadership traits in identifying and developing leadership talent in the Hawaiian community. As Malo states, “it is hardly possible to for all the people as a group to manage the government, acting to gather to solve problems, lift burdens, and clear up difficulties. That is probably the reason one person was made the aliʻi…”

The Burden of Proof

The arguments for occupation and the illegality of annexation seem to be going mainstream, at least in Hawaiʻi. Keanu Sai was on the front page of the Star Advertiser, and on Hawai’i Public Radio in the same week. Journalists, while still somewhat dubious of the arguments, also appear to be noticing the establishment’s lack of a credible defense of the status quo. When asked on Hawaiʻi News Now whether the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi still exists, Governor Abercrombie simply stated, “the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi does not exist,” but provided no support for his claim. He did essentially the same thing in a letter to the Secretary of Interior, skimming over the history of annexation in a way my 11th grade students would be embarrassed to do.

At the same time, the burden of proof seems (rightly, it seems) to be on Keanu Sai and his allies to show the veracity of their claims. This is where the burden should be placed in terms of logic: the logical fallacy onus probandi* holds that “the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).” So, again, it seems that the burden here is correctly placed. However, in international  law, when it comes to a state (nation-state or country) the burden of proof lies on the party that denies the existence of the state, the Hawaiian Kingdom in this case. This could be called the doctrine of presumption. As International law professor and Permanent Court of Arbitration (World Court) judge James Crawford states:

There is a strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.

It seems to me that international law takes precedence in this case. Here logic and international law appear to be at odds, but this is only because the argument for the continued existence of the Kingdom is the surprising one. We must be vigilant in our arguments, because, in my view, this issue will be resolved in discourse. There are other fallacies; for example I have fallen myself for the Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false. Because the “establishment” cannot satisfactorily explain away the claims that Sai and others bring up, does not automatically make those claims true.

*from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat”

55 Years of Hawaiʻi Statehood

According to Bell (1984, 38), American statehood for Hawaiʻi was discussed as early as the 1850s. The incorporation of Hawaiʻi into the United States through the 1900 Organic Act, Bell argues, included an tacit, or unspoken “assurance of ultimate statehood” (Bell, 1984, 40). Supreme Court decisions pointed to the idea that territorial status was “an intermediate step to eventual statehood” (1984, 41).

According to AhQuon McElrath: “the issue of communism was a smoke screen … They had to figure out a was of getting rid of the ILWU. So they raised the issue of communism. Of course, the anti-statehood people, most of them were anti-statehood because of the Oriental [Asian] population, jumped onto the anti-Communist issue too … it was popular … during the days of Senator McCarthy to worry about Communism” (PHS, 1986, 109).

John Burns recognized opposition to statehood. He stated:

The reasons why Hawaii did not achieve statehood, say, ten years ago … [or even] sixty years ago—lie not in the Congress but in Hawaii. The most effective opposition to statehood has always originated in Hawaiʻi itself. For the most part it has remained under cover and has marched under other banners. Such opposition could not afford to disclose itself, since it was so decidedly against the interests and desires of Hawaii’s people generally (Whitehead, 1993, 44).

Governor John A. Burns

Opposition to statehood for Hawaiʻi fell into two camps – those who opposed it because they preferred the Territorial arrangement, and those who held on to the idea of a more independent Hawaiʻi. The first position was represented by a group called IMUA, or the Hawaii Residents’ Association, which the mainstream dismissed as “lunatic fringe conservatives” (Whitehead, 1993, 45).

The most outspoken voice of the second group was Alice Kamokila Campbell, who testified:
I do not feel … we should forfeit the traditional rights and privileges of the natives of our islands for a mere thimbleful of votes in Congress, that we, the lovers of Hawaii from long association with it should sacrifice our birthrights for the greed of alien desires to remain on our shores, that we should satisfy the thirst for power and control of some inflated industrialists and politicians who hide under the guise of friends of Hawaii, yet still keeping an eagle eye on the financial and political pressure button of subjugation over the people in general of these islands (Whitehead, 1993, 50).

The January 17, 1946 headline of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin read “Kamokila Opposes Island Statehood.” Campbell also created an Anti-Statehood Clearinghouse, which received testimony from members of the community, especially Hawaiians, and expressed those opinions that ordinary people could not, under fear of losing jobs or other forms of retribution. Her precise goal for Hawaiʻi is not entirely clear. At times she asked that Hawaiʻi be “left alone,” and at others she said she favored “an independent form of government, but one in which ʻthe Congress of the United States would have a slight hold on us, so that we could not go absolutely haywire.’”

KAMOKILA CAMPBELL

Alice Kamokila Campbell

Kamokila Campbell was the daughter of sugar grower and financier James Campbell and Abigail Maʻipinepine Parker, who was “descended from HawaiʻI’s ruling chiefs” (Whitehead, 1993, 47). Kamokila Campbell’s sister, Abigail Wahiikaʻahuʻula Campbell, married prince David Kawānanakoa. The Campbell children were beneficiaries of the Campbell Estate, worth approximately $20 million in the post-war period (Whitehead, 1993, 47).

George Lehlightner worked for statehood because he perceived inequalities in the Territory:
So we [the United States] were actually saying out of one side of our mouths that we were fighting a war to assure the maintenance of our own freedom and restore it to others and, yet, out of the other side of the mouth we were telling 500,000 Americans [residents of Hawaiʻi], all of whom were good and loyal citizens, that we were going to impose taxation without representation and even worse on them, and we did (Lehleitner, 1986, 12).
Lehleitner (1986, 13) also felt that the charge of anti-American sentiment in HawaiʻI was exaggerated and false:

…there was not a single case on record of any citizen [of Hawaiʻi] having done anything that could be even remotely called treasonable. And then, when you add on top of that, the fact that HawaiʻI’s population was about 40 percent of Japanese descent, 40 percent AJAs, that in itself, it seemed to me, and I so presented it to the members of Congress I spoke with, was a strong case.

The strategy pursued by John Burns and pro-Statehood Democrats was to allow Alaska to gain statehood first, rather than combining the two territories into one bill. This would split the opposition in Congress to statehood for either HawaiʻI or Alaska. This proved a successful strategy, as Hawaiʻi was made a state on August 21st, 1959.

Hawaiʻi had been on the United Nations list of Non-Self Governing territories since the 1940s. It’s removal from the list required there be three options on the plebiscite ballot: territory (commonwealth), state and independence. Because this third option was left out, the Statehood vote and Statehood itself could be seen as illegal.

A People Without a Past: Mythology and History

Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau

In 1841, historian Samuel Kamakau warned against Hawaiians becoming “a race without a history.” This nearly came to pass, and in many circles (including powerful circles in Hawaiʻi) it is as if it did. The lesson of recent findings in Hawaiian history and archaeology (meaning in the last 50 years, but especially that last 20) is that we can trust our kupuna. Scientific findings have moved closer and closer to Hawaiian understandings in topics such as migration and oral history. Even unbelievable stories can be understood to be “true” if seen as metaphors. And what have our kupuna told us? For one thing, they unequivocally stated with the Kuʻe petitions in 1897-98 that they did not want us to be Americans (or only Americans). This is a modern example that is easy understand, but it is the older stories that are more difficult to reconcile.

Joseph Campbell has shown that Hawaiian mythology has correspondences to Eastern and Western mythologies, as if connecting to a “world mind.” The world’s foremost scholar of mythology, Joseph Campbell, is buried in Hawaiʻi at Oʻahu Cemetery (as is Kamakau, interestingly). Campbell got the spark for mythology at the Museum of Natural History in New York City when he saw the dioramas of Native Americans. This led to a lifelong study of comparative mythologies – Native American, “Oriental,” Western and even Polynesian. It is this incorporation of Hawaiian myths that particularly attracted me to Campbell’s work; many thinkers have grand meta-narratives that have great explanatory power, but they nearly always fail to apply to my own Hawaiian culture, and are thus incomplete.

Campbell’s work is impossible to summarize here, but he offered much in terms of explanation of the meaning of mythological stories, including biblical ones. One explanation that particularly struck me was that of meaning of the virgin birth, which he explains through chakras. To Campbell, the virgin birth is confusing when it is seen as a physical birth

“When the symbols that a religion is tied to is connected to a history, and then that history is found to be false, the symbols also fall.” Campbell suggests that the symbols emerge not from the outside world, but from the psyche [important note: psyche means soul, not mind – psychology has forgotten its own root (see Ken Wilber’s Integral Psychology)].

“Every civilization in the world has been shaped by mythology.” People live out these mythologies. Just as Jung’s work helped Campbell to understand the psychic meaning of myths, Hawaiians can use Campbell’s work to reconcile the mythological and historical dimensions of our oral history. In short, by reconciling the metaphorical nature of or history, we can begin to trust ourselves, our kupuna and our culture.

Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea: Restoration Day

July 31st is a Hawaiian national holiday – Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea. In this post I trace some of the historical background of this event, and report on its observance on Saturday, July 26th at Thomas Square, Honolulu. The date is also being observed at National Parks on Hawaiʻi Island.

Lord George Paulet arrived from Great Britain in the year 1843. Paulet investigated British Consul Charlton’s complaints, which were that British citizens were treated unfairly by the Kingdom, and that Kalanimoku (a previous kālaimoku) had given him land and Kauikeaouli later denied Charlton’s purported land ownership “rights” Paulet’s demands were that Charlton receive lands claimed, that British citizens were only to be judged by British law, and a $100,000 indemnity payment.

Paulet stated that “If my demands are not met, I will be obliged to take coercive steps to obtain [the] measures for my countrymen.” The Hawaiian Kingdom response was to cede the Kingdom to the British military under protest on February 25^th, 1843. They wrote a protest and appeal to Queen Victoria. They also wrote to reps. who were on a diplomatic trip to England, and sent a representative to the British Consul in Mexico.

The August 8th, 1843 issue of Ka Nonanona newspaper read:

AUGATE 8, 1843. Pepa 6.

MOKU MANUWA.
I ka la 26 o Iulai, ku mai la ka moku Manuwa Beritania, Dublin kona inoa. O Rear Adimarala. Thomas ke Alii. He alii oia maluna o na moku Manuwa Beritania a pau ma ka moana Pakifika nei.
I ka loaa ana ia ia ka palapala no Capt. Haku Geoge Paulet, ma ka moku Vitoria, a lohe pono oia, ua kau ka hae o Beritania ma keia pae aina, holo koke mai no ia e hoihoi mai ke aupuni ia Kamehameha III. Nani kona aloha mai i ke alii, ea! a me na kanaka no hoi.

Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III

KA HOIHOI ANA O KE AUPUNI.
Nani ka pomaikai o Kamehameha III, a me kona poe kanaka i keia wa, no ka mea, ua hemo ka popilikia, ua hoihoiia mai ka ea o ka aina. Ua pau ka noho pio ana malalo o ko Vitoria poe kanaka.
O Kamehameha III. oia ke alii nui o Hawaii nei i keia manawa. Ua kuuia ko Beritania hae ilalo i keia la, Iulai 31. 1843, a ua kau hou ia ko Hawaii nei hae. Nolaila, eia ka la o ka makahiki e hoomanao ia’e, me ka hauoli, ma keia hope aku.

My rough translation:

BATTLESHIP

Rear Admiral Richard Thomas

On the 26th day of July, a British battleship anchored here, Dublin was its name. The captain (Alii) was Rear Admiral Thomas. He is the head [alii] of the British Pacific fleet.

Lord George Paulet

In the taking of the documents of Capt. Lord George Paulet of the ship Victoria, he listened fairly [to how Paulet] raised the flag of Britain in this archipelago, [and] decided quickly to return the government to Kamehameha III. Amazing is the love of the alii for [the] sovereignty [ea]! And the people also.

THE RETURN OF THE GOVERNMENT

Splendid was the gratitude of Kamehameha III and his people at this time because the trouble [crisis, popilikia] was removed, and the sovereignty of the land was returned. Finished is the captive occupation under Victoria’s people.

Kamehameha III is the King [Ruling Chief, alii nui] at this time. The British flag is lowered [put down, kuuia] on this day, July 31st, and Hawaiʻi’s flag flies anew. Therefore, It is a day of the year to remember joyfully from this day forward.

It was at this time that Kauikeaouli made the statement that became the Kingdom’s and later the State’s motto: “Ua may ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono” [The sovereignty of the land is perpetuated in righteousness].  Seen in this context, it is obvious that his statement is about the return, or perpetuation, of sovereignty, and not merely a poetic statement about the “life of the land.” As I mentioned in my TED Talk, the motto of the State of Hawaiʻi is a sovereignty slogan for the Hawaiian Kingdom, which denies the existence of the State of Hawaiʻi.

Peter Young describes the feast that took place at Kaniakapupu in Nuʻuanu to celebrate the restoration of sovereignty:

271 hogs, 482 large calabashes of poi, 602 chickens, 3 whole oxen, 2 barrels salt pork, 2 barrels biscuit, 3,125 salt fish, 1,820 fresh fish, 12 barrels luau and cabbages, 4 barrels onions, 80 bunches bananas, 55 pineapples, 10 barrels potatoes, 55 ducks, 82 turkeys, 2,245 coconuts, 4,000 heads of taro, 180 squid, oranges, limes, grapes and various fruits. (source: Peter T. Young, Hoʻokuleana, LLC, 2014)

Poster for 2014 Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea, honoring Terri Kekoʻolani Raymond and Peggy Haʻo Ross.

It wasn’t until 1987 that Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea began to be observed again. In 1988, at age 16, I attended a very early sovereignty rally with my mother, a professor of Hawaiian literature. The rally was organized by Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell, who is now considered the father of the sovereignty movement. Neither I nor my mother had considered the prospect of Hawaiian sovereignty, as Hawaiʻi was still at the tail end of a process of Americanization, with “local” people trying constantly to prove they were “American enough.” Yet here was a Hawaiian, very successful in the newly-Westernized Hawaiʻi, advocating the idea of not being American at all. It was a difficult idea to grasp, but within five years the notion that some model of sovereignty would be implemented was considered inevitable.

Last year, the movement began to become nostalgic of itself, recognizing that its early leaders seemed to be reaching the end of their lives. Two men, Blaisdell and activist extraordinaire Soli Niheu were the honorees. This year, two women, Terri Kekoʻolani Raymond and Peggy Haʻo Ross were honored. Kekoʻolani spoke of others who were instrumental in the early movement, and Haʻo Ross was represented by her daughter Liliʻuokalani Ross, who gave an overview of her life and activism.

Music and commentary by Skippy Ioane, Imaikalani Kalāhele (who is a kind of Hawaiian beat poet), Liko Martin (with Laulani Teale) and others was consistent in its themes of Hawaiian steadfastness and solidarity to the concept of pono. It was preaching to the choir of course, but KITV news covered the event, spreading its reach.

2013 poster recognized Kekuni Blaisdell and Soli Niheu

Kamehameha’s Unification – for Kamehameha Day 2014

UNIFICATION OF HAWAIʻI ISLAND

Kamehameha came of age under the rule and tutelage of King Kalaniʻōpuʻu. Following Kalani‘ōpu‘u’s death, there were certain ceremonies pertaining to the funeral and the transition of power. An ‘awa drinking drinking ceremony, for example, led to an altercation between the heir Kīwalaʻō and Kekūhaupi‘o who claimed that his chief, Kamehameha, had been insulted by Kīwalaʻō, who passed the ʻawa chewed by Kamehameha on to his aikane. Kekūhaupiʻo exclaimed “The chief has insulted us! Your brother did not chew the ʻawa for a commoner, but for you, the chief” (Kamakau, 1992, 119). The two sailed to Keʻei to avoid further conflict.

Portrait of Kamehameha I, ca. 1800

Key ali‘i involved in ensuing land division were Kīwala‘ō, Keawema‘uhili, Keōuakuahu‘ula, Kamehameha, Ke‘eaumoku and three other Kona chiefs. In reaction to the land division Keō uakuahu‘ula, who had only received the Ka ‘u district, his home district, prepared for battle because, as the son of Kalaniopuʻu and half brother of Kīwalaʻō he felt entitled to fertile agricultural lands (see Kamakau, 1992, p. 120 for Keouaʻs remarks on the land division). Keawemaʻuhili advised Kīwalaʻō not to give Kamehameha a significant amount of land, claiming, “this is not according to your father’s command. He [Kamehameha] has the god and his old lands as was commanded. You are chief over the island, I am under you, and the chiefs under us. So was your father’s command” (Kamakau, 1992, p. 119). This caused the other chiefs to rebel against the new political order. Ke‘eaumoku and three other chiefs from Kona aligned with Kamehameha, claiming that the division was “unjust,” and that they were “impoverished” by this division (Kamakau, 1992, p. 119).

In the battle of Moku‘ohai, Kīwala‘o was killed by Ke‘eaumoku while trying to save Ke‘eaumoku’s niho palaoa (whale tooth necklace that is a royal pendant) (Kamakau, 1992, 121). Ka‘ü forces cut down niu (coconut trees) at Keʻei, a challenge to the existing power structure and a “sign of war (Kamakau, 1992, p. 120). According to Kamakau, “ the coconut tree was a man … with his head buried underground, and his penis and testicles above ground (Kamakau, 1992, p. 120). There were at this point three aupuni (governments) on Hawai‘i Island:

One was led by Keawema‘uhili, Who had been captured, but allowed to escape, and whose strongholdor wahi pa‘a was Hilo, Keōuakuahu‘ula whose wahi pa‘a was Ka‘ü, and Kamehameha whose wahi pa‘a were Kohala and Kona because of the Kona uncles.

Two major battles on Hawai‘i led to an indecisive result, and the island remained as three aupuni (governments).

Kamehameha stepped back from war and focused on taking care of his aupuni – increasing its capacity for food production and thus for waging war. Challenges he faced included environmental limitations, large populations and supporting a large warrior force.

Accomplishments in overcoming these challenges included irrigation of kula lands, and the building of canoe ramps, which allowed for the launching of Kamehameha’s massive fleet of 800 pelelu canoes from the rocky coasts of West Hawai’i.

Meanwhile on O‘ahu, a conflict between Kahekili’s protégé Kahāhana and the priest Ka‘ō pulupulu was coming to a head. Kahekili prepared to launch an attack and asked for assistance from Kamehameha but received it instead from Keawema‘uhili and Keō uakuahu‘ula. With their assistance Kahekili captured O‘ahu.

FOREIGN VISITORS 1778 – 1796

Kuykendall (1938) lists the foreign ships to arrive in Hawaii, and also the Hawaiians who left on ships, noting that the first Hawaiian to leave Hawaii on a foreign ship was a woman, who was hired as a maid for the wife of a ship captain. La Perouse was third. Simon Metcalf took revenge on Hawaiians who had stolen a ship and killed one of his sailors, resulting in the Olowalu massacre, in which between fifty and one hundred Hawaiians were lured into paddling their canoes to one side of his ship, and then opened fire on them. Metcalf had earlier whipped Kameʻeiamoku with a rope for a minor/petty infraction, and Kameʻeiamoku vowed revenge on the next foreign ship, which coincidentally was the Fair American a sloop/schooner captained by Metcalf’s son. All of the crew was killed except one – Isaac Davis. John Young was taken from the Eleanor at the same time and both became trusted advisors to Kamehameha.

close-up of the Fair American at Kepūwahaʻula, the Battle of the Red-Mouthed Gun

Other violent incidents occurred, but according to Kuykendall, the relations between Hawaiians and foreigners were generally good.

OLOWALU MASSACRE

In 1790, the ship Eleanor arrived at Maui. Some Hawaiians stole the ship’s longboat, and in revenge, the British massacred many Hawaiians at Olowalu, near Lahaina, Maui (Kamakau, 1992, 146). One result of this event was that Kamehameha gained Western advisors and trainers in John Young and Isaac Davis. The two British foreigners became aikane, or favorites, of Kamehameha, John Young marrying Kamehameha’s daughter. Kamehameha also received from this exchange the cannon that became so valued it was given the name Lopaka.

KEPANIWAI

Before unifying Hawai‘i Kamehameha moved on Maui, a campaign culminating in the Battle of Kepaniwai (the damming of the waters) at Iao valley.

His opponent was Kalaniküpule who was the son of Kahekili, and he had as an ally Keawema‘uhili, the ali‘i nui of Hilo. This battle did not lead to unification, but has gone down in Hawaiian history for two reasons.

One notable event was Kamehameha’s rousing speech:

I mua e nā pō ki‘i. E inu i ka wai ‘awa‘awa. ‘A‘ohe hope e ho‘i mai ai

Go forward my dear younger brothers. Drink of the bitter waters.

There is no turning back.

One significant outcome of this speech is that it became the origin of Kamehameha Schools’ motto Imua Kamehameha. The second reason this battle is notable is that it was the first time the cannon “Lopaka” was used. This cannon caused “a great slaughter” (Kamakau, 1992) and introduces the question of Kamehamehaʻs reliance on Western technology.

Iao needle, Iao valley, Maui

The result of Kepaniwai was that Kamehameha gained temporary control of Maui. Kalaniküpule fled to O‘ahu, and Kahekili received aid from Ka‘eokülani to take back Maui. While Kamehameha was on Maui Keōuakuahu‘ula attacked Kohala and Hamakua and killed Keawema‘uhili. On Moloka‘i at the time Kamehameha said “Alas! While I have been seeking new children my first born have been abandoned!”

After one last indecisive battle with Keō uakuahu‘ula, Keō ua and Kamehameha retreated. While Keō ua was traveling through ‘Ōla‘a the volcano erupted killing one-third of Keoua’s army. The footprints of some of his soldiers can still be seen in the lava. This event may have been interpreted as the goddess Pele’s favoring of Kamehameha, but it certainly affected Keoua’s ability to wage war, and influenced his next decision.

Kamehameha focused in the meantime on cultivating his and his nation’s relationship with the gods. He consulted a prophet from Kaua‘i named Kapoukahi, asking what was required in order to unite Hawai‘i Island. The prophet responded that he need to build a house for his god, i.e., a heiau for Kuka‘ilimoku. This heiau was called Pu‘ukohola, and was built at Kawaihae, Kohala. The work of building this heiau was seen as being so important that Kamehameha did not exempt himself from the work of carrying stones. He had his brother, Keli‘imaika‘i maintain the kapu for their family. When Keli‘imaika‘i tried to carry a stone, Kamehameha took it from him and threw it into the sea.

Construction of Puʻukoholā heiau by Herb Kane

For the dedication of Pu‘ukoholā Kamehameha invited Keōuakuahu‘ula to come to Kawaihae, ostensibly to co-rule. Keō ua agreed to go to Kawaihae knowing that he was going to be sacrificed. The loss of one-third of his army meant certain defeat, and his acquiescence was a means of saving his Ka ‘u people from slaughter. Keoua stopped, however, at Luahinewai on his way to Kawaihae. At this pond he performed the ritual called “death of uli,” which consisted of “cut[ting] off the end of his penis (umuʻo)” (Kamakau, 1992, p. This was a final act of defiance toward Kamehameha in that it would make his body an imperfect sacrifice and therefore make Kamehameha’s unification imperfect.

Keoua arrived at Pu‘ukohola and his entourage sailed into the bay. When Keoua jumped off his canoe, Ke‘eaumoku immediately tried to killed him with a spear. This was to prevent a face-to-face meeting between Kamehameha and Keoua. According to Kamakau “Kamehameha might not have killed him, for he loved Keoua.” Nearly all the Ka‘u chiefs were killed. Thus, by 1791 Hawai‘i Island was completely under the control of Kamehameha.

KA NAʻI AUPUNI – UNIFICATION

Kamehameha was then forced to consider one of his actions from years before. When he was a young chief he was sailing along the coast of Puna. Kamehameha called out to some fishermen feigning that he wanted to speak with them. They fled, knowing that the six-and-a-half foot tall chief wanted them as sacrifices. Chasing them, Kamehameha foot became stuck in the lava rock, and the fishermen hit him over the head with a paddle. Reflecting on this, Kamehameha realized that his actions constituted an abuse of power. As mo‘i of Hawai‘i Island, he wanted to protect his subjects from such abuses by chiefs. He declared Kānāwai Māmalahoe, the law of the splintered paddle. This law proclaimed:

“Let the old men go and lie by the roadside, let the old women go and lie by the roadside, let the children go and lie by the roadside and no one shall harm them.”[2]

Artistʻs impression of the encounter that led to Kanawai Mamalahoe, by Herb Kane

This law meant that while travelling, people were not to be attacked, but were to be fed and housed. This was his way of granting the people of Hawai‘i security and freedom; security from the abuses of chiefs, and freedom of movement.

Kahekili died at the age of 87 in Waikiki, one of the prizes of his conquests. His son Kalaniküpule and Ka‘eokülani engaged in a battle in which Ka‘eokūlani died. Kalanikūpule then controlled O‘ahu and Nā Hono a Pi‘ilani – Maui, Lana’i, Moloka‘i and Kaho‘olawe.

Kamehameha next prepared to attack O‘ahu. In 1795, Kamehameha launched the campaign that culminated in the Battle of Nu‘uanu. Kamehameha’s fleet landed and attacked Lahaina and burned all the houses, then moved on to Moloka‘i, where the final planning meeting was held. An advisor named Ka‘iana, a Hawaiian [ali‘i] who had sailed on Western ships reaching China at one point, was excluded from the meeting. Taking this as an omen that he was to be killed, he defected with the 3,500 soldiers he commanded and joined Kalanikupule.

Kahekili had anticipated this attack years earlier. He quizzed his chiefs on where they thought Kamehameha would approach. One advisor thought that Kamehameha’s strategy would be to land at Waikiki and Leahi (Diamond Head). Kahekili said that this was the correct answer. Kamehameha did indeed land at Waikiki across a three mile stretch of beach. Kalanikupule did not oppose this landing.

Kamehameha’s army camped at Leahi (Diamond Head) for three days, and then began marching toward Nu’uanu. The first battle began at Kawananakoa, at the mouth of Nu’uanu valley. Battles continued up the East side of the valley. Ka’iana died in one of these battles. Kamehameha sent his soldiers with cannons up the East rim of the valley, firing down on the O’ahu troops. Kamehameha’s forces pushed Kalanikupule’s army up toward the Nu’uanu pali (cliff). The story is often told that Kamehameha “pushed them (O’ahu soldiers) over the pali,” but many of the O’ahu soldiers may have jumped over the pali, rather than being conquered by Hawai’i’s army.

Kamehameha was now in control of all the islands except Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau. He regained Maui by virtue of its belonging previously to Kalanikupule.

Kamehameha next launched an attack on Kaua‘i, but encountered a storm and returned to O‘ahu. He took yet another step back to focus on his new, large aupuni, working to restore O‘ahu’s productivity. Kamehameha’s second attempt to take Kaua‘i in 1804 was stopped by the ma‘i ‘oku‘u, an outbreak of either cholera or bubonic plague. Kamehameha caught this disease, but survived. One who did not survive, however, was Ke‘eaumoku. On his deathbed, Ke‘eaumoku warned Kamehameha that the only threat to his rule was from his own daughter, Kamehameha’s wife Ka‘ahumanu.

Despite two failed attacks on Kaua‘i, by 1810 Ka‘eokulani’s son Kaumuali‘i felt he could not evade the impending takeover of his kingdom, and agreed to meet Kamehameha at Honolulu Harbor.

UNIFICATION OF KAUA’I

“Ke alo I luna, ai’ole ke alo i lalo?” Kaumualiʻi asked “Here I am; is it face up or face down?” The new King dismissed Kaumuali’i’s acknowledgement of Kamehameha’s superiority, and Kaumualiʻi continued: “This is my gift at our meeting: the land of Kauaʻi, its chiefs, its men great and small” (Kamakau, 1992, 196). Kamehameha replied that he would not accept the offer, but requested that “if our young chief [Liholiho] makes you a visit, be pleased to receive him.” (Tresgakis, 1973, 285).

Hiki Nō: PBS Student-Produced News Segment on the New Version of Hawaiʻi’s Story by Hawaiʻi’s Queen

A few weeks back, my National History Day bound students and I were featured on Hiki Nō, the student-produced news program on PBS Hawaiʻi. The episode included a feature on the new version of Liliʻuokalani’s book, annotated by David Forbes. I probably overstate the differences in the new version, but the point is it goes a little deeper into the history and hopefully will stimulate more people to read her powerful book. The segment on Kamehameha begins at 17:00.

The Race for Nationhood

There’s something happening here.

What it is ain’t exactly clear. 

Buffalo Springfield

I began to notice a little over a year ago that there was a kind of “race” on for nationhood – that is, for the kind of nation we as Hawaiians would be(come). At that time I was beginning to hear the whispers of a new strategy, post-Akaka and Inouye, for Federal Recognition through the executive branch. This was a race in itself, as Obama’s term was seen as the deadline for any action on Federal Recognition (although as the spouse of the signer of the Apology Resolution, HIlary Clinton may hold out hope for Fed Rec). But I also noticed an uptick in progress on the independence front, mainly in the work led by Keanu Sai. And it is this race between these two mutually exclusive forms of sovereignty that I focus on in this post.

This week, we hear of major developments on both fronts. This came from OHA in a joint statement by Board chair Collette Machado and CEO Kamanaʻopono Crabbe, ostensibly showing their unified stance after Crabbe’s memo to the State Department that seemed to indicate a preference for independence:

OHA’s top leadership also applauded the Obama Administration for reaffirming the special political relationship between the federal government and the Native Hawaiian people. The federal government is considering whether to take administrative action on reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with Native Hawaiians.

 “For decades, OHA and other Native Hawaiian organizations and individuals have advocated for the creation of a pathway to reestablish a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States, and to protect existing Hawaiian rights, programs, and resources,” said Machado and Crabbe.

“Prerule” on Dept. of Interior action facilitating “government-to-government” status for the Hawaiian “community” (via Trisha Kehau Watson)

On the independence front, we hear that the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law will list Hawaiʻi in its War Report for 2013 as an occupied state (state is used here as in “nation-state” or country). The 2012 War Report listed nine “belligerent occupations,” i.e., occupations by warring states. Hawaiʻi is considered in this view as being occupied belligerently because it was a neutral country being pulled into the Spanish-American War in 1898. Other occupations in 2012 included:

Azerbaijan by Armenia; Cyprus by Turkey; Eritrea by Ethiopia; Georgia by Russia; Lebanon by Israel; Moldova by Russia; Palestine by Israel; Syria by Israel; and Western Sahara by Morocco (hawaiiankingdom.org/blog).

While a seemingly academic report, because the Academy is based in Geneva, it will certainly be read by United Nations officials, and thus has the potential to change the dialog on Hawaiʻi’s status. The video discusses the 2012 Report, but is instructive in terms of the agenda (or lack thereof) of its assemblers.

It is possible that the Obama Administration’s sudden interest stems from the growing knowledge of the idea of occupation, and possibly even from the report itself. It is in this sense that I use the term “race” – a (probably unwitting) contest between two mutually exclusive approaches to nationhood, the stakes of which could well leave a permanent mark on the direction of Hawaiʻi’s status under national and international law.

The War Report is available from Oxford University Press for £39.99.